Jim Kelley wrote:

...
I see. Well, at the time it sounded more like you were saying "The
amazing thing is that space cannot exist without those particles which
provide the very structure of space itself." Which seems to presume to
know what space is.
...
All the while shouting demeaning epithets, and ever after claiming to
have never held the opinion in the first place. :-)

73, ac6xg

Yes, I see your point. Space is real; however, does it consist of
bosons or the imaginings/denials of bozos.

Excellent point ...

Regards,
JS

On Sep 19, 6:47*pm, John Smith wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
...
I see. *Well, at the time it sounded more like you were saying "The
amazing thing is that space cannot exist without those particles which
provide the very structure of space itself." *Which seems to presume to
know what space is.
...
All the while shouting demeaning epithets, and ever after claiming to
have never held the opinion in the first place. *:-)

73, ac6xg

Yes, I see your point. *Space is real; *however, does it consist of
bosons or the imaginings/denials of bozos.

Excellent point ...

Regards,
JS

Johns Rules for Posting:

CASE I

1. Author makes post.

2. Cecil validates post.

3. John pounces on author's opponent.

CASE II

1. Author makes post.

2. Cecil invalidates post.

3. John pounces on author.

On Sep 19, 6:37*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:

[the chit I already mentioned ... ]

And, in intuiting your next response(s), yes, when we get a good
understanding of the gravitational ether instant communications to far
distant corners of the universe will happen instantaneously (perhaps we
will finally get results from SETI! grin) *This is why some are
speculating we don't have our antennas "correct" and the formulas we
design them with are lacking ...

Shortly after we figure this all out (well, years? decades?), we will
have craft which can duplicate this same phenomenon--travel to any
corner of this universe almost instantaneously. *If you don't "read"
Einstein and get this out of it ... re-read him!

Need I mention Long Delay Echo? (LDE) ... what is your take on that? *A
reflection from a cloaked mothership? *ROFLOL

Well, I don't know what it is either, but it bears looking into ...

Regards,
JS

Oops...another senility eruption by Captain John ("moon unit") Smith.

Jim Kelley wrote:
Well, at the time it sounded more like you were saying "The
amazing thing is that space cannot exist without those particles which
provide the very structure of space itself."

Quantum Physics tells us that particles are the only
things that exist in reality so since space exists,
it must be made of particles without which space couldn't
exist. My personal opinion is that Quantum Physics is
correct and that's what I was paraphrasing above.

My personal opinion is that Einstein was correct when
he said:

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the
general theory of relativity space is endowed with
physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there
exists an ether. According to the general theory of
relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for
in such space there not only would be no propagation
of light, but also no possibility of existence for
standards of space and time (measuring-rods and
clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in
the physical sense."

Replace "physical qualities" with "particles" in
accordance with the latest thinking in Quantum
Physics and you will have arrived at my personal
opinion. Feel free to continue to harass me for
having opinions based on science. In exactly what
ways do you disagree with Quantum Physics and
Einstein?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

John Smith wrote:
This is why some are
speculating we don't have our antennas "correct" and the formulas we
design them with are lacking ...

Maybe we should fire up our modulated gravity wave
and entangled particle receivers.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
"According to the general theory of relativity,
space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
This is why some are speculating we don't have our antennas "correct"
and the formulas we design them with are lacking ...

Maybe we should fire up our modulated gravity wave
and entangled particle receivers.

Cecil:

I am just telling you what I see suggested in his papers, lectures and
talks (not to mention a whole slew of others chiming in along the way)
.... and, of course, even Einstein himself found it, almost,
unbelievable! Indeed, he made a direct comment to this (not before me
right now, will quote it later.)

But, yes, although "the how we will do this" is much like
space/structure/ether--at this point, it requires a wee-bit of faith ...

Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
This is why some are speculating we don't have our antennas "correct"
and the formulas we design them with are lacking ...

Maybe we should fire up our modulated gravity wave
and entangled particle receivers.

Cecil:

When ever I become timid, cautious and have a lack of courage in being
able to state exactly where it appears "we are being taken", or what is
possible, I think what existed before my birth and early childhood:
(indeed, I am still such a coward on these matters, I tend to stick to
what Einstein suggests!)

1) We didn't have the Maser/Laser. (Buck Rogers ray gun)

2) We hadn't been to space nor walked the Moon. (only speculated on it
in science fiction)

3) Our doctors still appeared like Witch Doctors (well, they still do, a
bit, baby steps, baby steps ...)

4) Computers were mere "toys." (a decent one would have occupied square
miles and consumed the output power of nuclear reactor)

5) The speed of sound was considered a "wall", much like the speed of
light today ...

6) [Continue this almost endless list--at will ... ]

Back then, mention any of these advances as speculations on where the
science "of the time" was about to go, you would have been laughed out
of the room--why should we expect different today? People/society just
doesn't change "that much", that quickly ...

Regards,
JS